Supreme Court justices will return to Washington on Monday for their first closed-door conference to discuss cases petitioned to them, a week ahead of the beginning of the high court’s new term featuring several major cases.
The high court’s “long conference,” held the week before the new Supreme Court term, will feature thousands of petitions that have piled up during the three months since the last term ended with the final opinion day on June 30. The Supreme Court will likely decline to take up nearly all of the cases for argument, but some will be relisted for another conference for further discussion or accepted for oral arguments. The justices have already accepted 25 cases for oral argument for the upcoming term and are expected to add dozens more in the coming months, including from the long conference.
The Supreme Court will go through thousands of cases for consideration to be heard by the justices, including several notable disputes ranging from “implicit bias training” to bans on “Let’s Go Brandon” clothes. First Amendment cases are commonplace on the Supreme Court’s docket, and the justices could add to their jurisprudence on the speech rights with several cases it will consider at the long conference.
Majestic Realty Co. v. Salazar
With Majestic Realty Co. v. Salazar, the high court is being asked to look at whether a state violates the takings clause and the First Amendment when it mandates that shopping center owners must allow “unwanted expressive activity on their land.” The case stems from an activist who sued a group of shopping centers claiming that, under California’s free speech constitutional protection, he should be allowed to distribute leaflets expressing his beliefs on their private property. State courts in California sided with the activist, rejecting the shopping centers’ argument that it violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution, leading them to the U.S. Supreme Court.
D.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools
Another First Amendment case involves free speech rights of students at school, specifically regarding political speech that is not explicit or crude. In D.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, the Supreme Court is being asked to review whether A Michigan school district violated the First Amendment rights of students by barring two of them from wearing sweatshirts reading, “Let’s Go Brandon,” which became a popular euphemism for the phrase “F*** Joe Biden” in 2021. If the justices agree to take up the case, they would have to decide whether First Amendment precedent “permits schools to censor nondisruptive political speech that is not plainly profane or lewd.”
Khatibi v. Lawson
With the petition in the case Khatibi v. Lawson, the Supreme Court is being asked to review a challenge to “implicit bias training” which has been mandated by state and local governments, along with some private companies. “Implicit bias training” is a type of diversity, equity, and inclusion program, which proponents argue educates people about bias they may have against different races or the opposite sex, while opponents claim it pushes a hard-left view of race and sex for participants to adopt. The lawsuit, brought by two California doctors, challenges the Golden State’s mandate that implicit bias training be part of the process for renewing their medical licenses on First Amendment grounds. The two doctors claim the training unlawfully forces participants to adopt government-approved viewpoints to maintain their medical licenses.
Blanche v. Ozurumba
One of the immigration petitions the Supreme Court will consider during its long conference is Blanche v. Ozurumba, which deals with a noncitizen who entered the United States at the southern border in 2023, then applied for asylum. Ozurumba’s asylum request was denied because an immigration judge found he provided “material support” for a terrorist organization, after he was recruited by and later forced to cook for the terrorist group in Nigeria. A federal appeals court reversed the finding that he provided “material support” for a terrorist organization, narrowing the scope of what constitutes sufficient support to be disqualified from receiving asylum. The Justice Department appealed the appeals court’s ruling to the Supreme Court, centering on the threshold for what constitutes providing material support for a terrorist organization.
Thompson v. Wilson
Another petition the Supreme Court will review for possible oral arguments is in Thompson v. Wilson and involves the surveillance of a lobsterman. Frank Thompson, a lobsterman in Maine, brought the lawsuit claiming that the state’s regulations requiring fishermen to have GPS trackers on their boats, submitting information to the state to keep their fishing licenses, violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Maine has defended the rule as one of many laws it uses to regulate the lobster industry. The questions presented to the justices ask them to determine if the law “constitutes an unreasonable trespassory search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
SIX MAJOR CASES THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR IN ITS UPCOMING TERM
The Supreme Court will hold its first oral arguments of the new term on Oct. 5, beginning with a major case about the ability for counties and states to levy costly climate change lawsuits against oil producers.
The high court will continue oral arguments for the term through the end of April 2027, with all decisions in all of the argued cases expected by the end of June 2027.